Are rights objectively real?

[Quag]

that means they comes from nature, from the body, we are born with them.

Natural | Definition of Natural by Merriam-Webster

1 : existing in nature and not made or caused by people : coming from nature
2 : not having any extra substances or chemicals added : not containing anything artificial
3 : usual or expected

if it comes from man it is by definition not natural.
Perhaps you should look for a new term

 

[Quag]

Look up the words objectively, subjectively and real and you will have your answer.

I have I am asking what YOU think the terms means.

 

[Master PO]

Doesnt explain how you first got the property.
There is a goat in a field by what right can someone claim it?
At some point there has to be soemone who estabnlished ownership, there must be a reason why this is theirs.

property is obtained thru sweat and labor!

 

[Master PO]

Natural | Definition of Natural by Merriam-Webster



if it comes from man it is by definition not natural.
Perhaps you should look for a new term

its natural for you to speak, walk ,create among many others things

 

[Quag]

property is obtained thru sweat and labor!

Ok you sweat you labour and tell me how is that piece of land yours, when someone else already claimed it?
Why doesnt it belong to Jim or Frank, they worked hard as well.


BTW the answer is because some humans got together and DECIDED to divvy up things.

 

[Quag]

its natural for you to speak, walk ,create among many others things

Those are abilites not rights, and a mute cannot speak a quadrapalegic cannot walk etc etc...

 

[Henrin]

Ok you sweat you labour and tell me how is that piece of land yours, when someone else already claimed it?
Why doesnt it belong to Jim or Frank, they worked hard as well.

Why do you keep doing this? The question is not if the land is already owned, but how does ownership come into being. The entire point of the question is to start from the beginning and work for there.

As for Jim and Frank they have done nothing to give them claim to the land.

 

[Quag]

Why do you keep doing this? The question is not if the land is already owned, but how does ownership come into being. The entire point of the question is to start from the beginning and work for there.

As for Jim and Frank they have done nothing to give them claim to the land.

Yes how does it come into being, you have not adressed that except to claim you picking up an acorm makes it yours.
If I saw it first would it be mine? If i picked it up, then put it down would your picking it up be theft? What if I dropped it accidentally? What if I had planted the tree and thus already claimed the tree it came from? Or the forest?
What gives you the right to claim the acorn in the first place?

 

[Master PO]

Ok you sweat you labour and tell me how is that piece of land yours, when someone else already claimed it?
Why doesnt it belong to Jim or Frank, they worked hard as well.


BTW the answer is because some humans got together and DECIDED to divvy up things.

if a person owns land, and they wish to exchange it for something else, i can exchanges goods or services ...goods like money, or sweat /labor it depends upon contract.

 

[Master PO]

Those are abilites not rights, and a mute cannot speak a quadrapalegic cannot walk etc etc...

so that because a person cannot talk or walk because of their disabilities, that means all others cannot have their natural abilities?

 

[Quag]

if a person owns land, and they wish to exchange it for something else, i can exchanges goods or services ...goods like money, or sweat /labor it depends upon contract.

How does a person own land in the first place?
You are assuming ownership somehow, I am asking how?

 

[Quag]

so that because a person cannot talk or walk because of their disabilities, that means all others cannot have their natural abilities?

No it means it is not universal.
Though that doesnt change the fact that they are abilities and not rights.

 

[Master PO]

How does a person own land in the first place?
You are assuming ownership somehow, I am asking how?

if land is unclaimed by a person or government, a person can stake his ownership of it.

even in law this can be found, if i find a car and no body claims it , its mine

 

[Master PO]

No it means it is not universal.
Though that doesnt change the fact that they are abilities and not rights.

they are natural abilities

if a right is not a natural ability what is it according to you?...because i can tell you now, you will not find any law in american government granting a right.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

You are trying to change the language by trying to use your own personal definition of natural.
As to dogmatically writing of the concept of natural rights, nope the burden of proof remaisn witrh those who claim they exist, no one has even come close to meeting that burden of proof.
As to strawman your fixation on trying to tie me to some anti-christian theme is actually a strawman. Unlike when you accused me of using a strawman.
Secular/divine it is irrelevant as there is nothing to support the claim of natural rights.

I said that I dont subscribe to humans being separate from nature. The notion that nature and humans are separate is a religious derived definition. I see no difference between a beaver building a dam and humans building a dam except for one is better at it than the other.

I reject the notion that man made things are not a natural part of nature. But that religious notion is deeply rooted and the dictionary showed (the definition that you quoted) nothing more than religious influence. So yes the dictionary and its purpose is to give definitions to commonly used words. It isnt the end all authority of reality.
Often the mistake is made in debates (myself included) it is tempting to use the dictionary as the ultimate source, but much of the time that is a logical fallacy.

Argumentum ad dictionarium - RationalWiki

So it is rational to reject a religious interpretation of what natural is. If you want to subscribe to religious notions that is your deal not mine, and I wont be a part of such illogical claims that human activity (and thought) isnt a natural part of nature. So therefor my position is that the dictionary is wrong. Now you can throw your arms up accuse me of using my own personal definition of natural is that suits you, but it wont persuade me into thinking like a Christian.

Now that being said, a man made element isnt made through the natural processes that would have happened had man not existed. I do not dispute the concept that humans make things that would not occur without humans on Earth. But human made isnt set above or any different than beaver made. In both cases it was animal made.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

I have I am asking what YOU think the terms means.

Should I roll over too? Are you going to bring out the dictionary again?

 

[CrabCake]

Ok I see your point I should have been more clear. But really you should have figured out it was a mistake and stopped this petty ball busting already.

It is was the lynchpin of your claim that the founding fathers were using a secular notion of natural rights rather than one grounded on religion. I don't think it is petty. I think it sends you back to the drawing board. You now have to either withdraw that claim or prove it some other way. You attempted to prove it by linking to an article on a legal dictionary which again...contradicts your claim. That very link you provided summarizes it this way (emphasis added):

Secular Natural Law legal definition of Secular Natural Law

Thus, natural law in the United States may be best understood as the integration of history, secular reason, and divine inspiration.

You seem to have a knack for quoting things that actually contradict your view rather than providing evidence for it.

 

[RAMOSS]

property is obtained thru sweat and labor!

In societies that acknowledge the concept of property. However, there have been societies where sweat and labor was for the community.. not for the person. For example,a number of american indian tribes did not have the concept of personal property before the advent of the Europeans.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

It is was the lynchpin of your argument that the founding fathers were using a secular notion of natural rights rather than one grounded on religion. I don't think it is petty. I think it sends you back to the drawing board. You now have to either withdraw that claim or prove it some other way. You attempted to prove it by linking to an article on a legal dictionary which again...contradicts your claim. That very link you provided summarizes it this way (emphasis added):

Secular Natural Law legal definition of Secular Natural Law


You seem to have a knack for quoting things that actually contradict your view rather than providing evidence for it.

I told you that I should have been more clear. And I said that I made a mistake. As I said you misunderstood what I saying because of my mishandling of language. We all make mistakes. You believed that I was saying that forefathers only used a secular version of natural rights, but that was not my intention. Never was my intention actually. You can believe me or not I dont care. If you want to believe that I am now back tracking then take it as a small petty victory.

I only shared this link: Secular Natural Law legal definition of Secular Natural Law as a reference on that there is a concept called secular natural law. The link wasnt intended to be my argument at all. I was just pointing out that there is a hypothesis for secular natural rights not just a divine version that many people think is the only version of natural rights.

If you are going to argue against what was written in that link, find the author and talk to them.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

In societies that acknowledge the concept of property. However, there have been societies where sweat and labor was for the community.. not for the person. For example,a number of american indian tribes did not have the concept of personal property before the advent of the Europeans.

What tribes were they?

 

[Master PO]

In societies that acknowledge the concept of property. However, there have been societies where sweat and labor was for the community.. not for the person. For example,a number of american indian tribes did not have the concept of personal property before the advent of the Europeans.

did those indians, exercise the natural rights from their bodies, by walking, talking creating dwellings, weapons.

indians shared work and food because it was easier to gather and hunt for food in groups and not as individuals , but they had personal property

 

[RAMOSS]

did those indians, exercise the natural rights from their bodies, by walking, talking creating dwellings, weapons.

indians shared work and food because it was easier to gather and hunt for food in groups and not as individuals , but they had personal property

When you use the term 'natural rights', you use it in a non-standard manner, that expands the term so much it makes the concept of 'rights' totally meaningless. It also is a non-sequitur when it comes to 'property rights'. That deflection is intellectually dishonest

 

[CrabCake]

I told you that I should have been more clear. And I said that I made a mistake. As I said you misunderstood what I saying because of my mishandling of language. We all make mistakes. You believed that I was saying that forefathers only used a secular version of natural rights, but that was not my intention. Never was my intention actually. You can believe me or not I dont care. If you want to believe that I am now back tracking then take it as a small petty victory.

I only shared this link: Secular Natural Law legal definition of Secular Natural Law as a reference on that there is a concept called secular natural law. The link wasnt intended to be my argument at all. I was just pointing out that there is a hypothesis for secular natural rights not just a divine version that many people think is the only version of natural rights.

If you are going to argue against what was written in that link, find the author and talk to them.

OK. I guess I didn't understand what you were backtracking out of. I thought you were merely backtracking out of the claim that John Locke was the secular foundation for the US constitution's founders. But you are backing off the entire claim that the founding fathers held a secular view of natural rights.

In that case, I don't think we actually have any disagreements. There is obviously a secular foundation of natural rights; anyone who denies this is simply ignorant. But that secular view was not what was used by the founders in drafting the US constitution (which if I'm understanding correctly, you either don't disagree with anymore or have no interest in discussing).

 

[devildavid]

What claim do you have to it? I found it and it has no prior owner, so why do I not have claim to it?

It is not specifically yours to pick up. Anyone could pick it up. Just because you got there first does not make it exclusively your property. If anything, it is not property but a common resource owned by no one.

 

[devildavid]

this is not new, natural rights follow nature, .......the name natural rights

speech, create, associate, own property, walk, are all natural to the body.

Why can't you answer my question? How did you come to your personal definition of natural rights? "Natural rights follow nature' is a meaningless phrase. Rights are a human invention, not a discovery in the natural world. Man's natural behavior is not the same as the concept of rights. Free speech rights are not about the right to talk. People talk to communicate by necessity, not as an exercise of rights. Speech rights in this country focus on the content of speech in relation to the government. Saying "hi" to my neighbors is not an exercise of free speech.

Walking to get from one place to another is not exercising a right; it is a natural action to get from one place to another. Basic human activity happens not because of any inherent right, but because of inherent ability. Laws set artificial boundaries not on my ability to walk, but on what property I am allowed to walk on. There are no laws protecting walking as an activity; this would be an absurd application of the concept of natural rights.